The enduring SARS-CoV-2 pandemic necessitates robust tools for severity assessment. This study, conducted at Islamabad Diagnostic Center across Pakistan from January 2021 to August 2022, aimed to investigate hematological abnormalities among suspected SARS-CoV-2 subjects. Initial enrollment included 130,347 cases, with 53,078 confirmed positive and 77,269 negative. An additional 11,786 samples expanded the dataset to 142,133. The Omicron and Centaurus variants, in confirmed positive patients, exhibited a slightly higher frequency of hematological abnormalities (30.42%) than negative participants (27.01%). Notably, lymphocyte count reduction (40.95%) suggested its potential as an alternative diagnostic parameter for clinical COVID-19. Decreased levels of NA (37.99%), HGB (26.17%), MCV (20.60%), PLT (6.15%), and ALB (2.28%) were observed. Abnormally elevated NEU, CR, MONO, RBCs, WBC, and EOS levels affected 26.00%, 24.28%, 30.79%, 22.02%, 6.28%, and 5.53% of subjects, respectively. Comparatively, positive patients exhibited higher abnormal blood parameters—LYMP count (57.40%), NEU count (46.08%), EOS count (62.48%), MONO count (31.61%), RBC count (30.32%), ALC count (43.60%), CR count (30.91%), NA count (40.53%), CRP count (68.46%), and DD (63.08%) than negative counterparts. The study underscores lymphocytopenia’s potential as a cost-effective, early diagnostic biomarker for clinical COVID-19, preceding real-time PCR diagnosis. This supports its consideration in resource-limited settings for strategic screening and policy-making in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 battle.

Diabetes mellitus remains a major global health burden, with effective management relying heavily on accurate blood glucose monitoring. Personal glucometers are widely used for daily self-checks, yet their performance must be rigorously validated against laboratory standards to ensure reliability. This study undertook a diagnostic evaluation of three glucometers, DSA, MedSenso, and the laboratory-based Cobas systems (C503 and Pro analyzers), to assess their precision and clinical applicability. In a cross-sectional design, 150 clinical samples from diabetic patients were analyzed using the DSA glucometer and Cobas C503, while an additional 200 diabetic blood samples were tested to compare MedSenso with the Cobas Pro analyzer. Ethical approval was obtained, and diagnostic parameters including sensitivity, specificity, correlation, and difference percentages were evaluated against the respective Cobas gold-standard systems. Results revealed nuanced but clinically meaningful findings. For the DSA glucometer, correlation with Cobas C503 ranged from 87.9% to 100%, with differences varying between 0.0% and 32.3%. Although entries with perfect correlation (100%) and no difference (0.0%) indicated excellent agreement, instances of high correlation coupled with significant differences highlighted systematic biases, particularly consistent over- or underestimation by the DSA device. Such discrepancies underscore the need for device-specific awareness to avoid misinformed clinical decisions. In contrast, the MedSenso glucometer demonstrated excellent agreement with Cobas Pro, showing a correlation coefficient of 0.984 and near-identical glucose results across tested samples. Its ease of use and rapid reporting make MedSenso especially promising for clinical settings where fast decision-making is essential. Collectively, the study underscores the complexity of glucose measurement in diabetes care. While the DSA glucometer requires cautious interpretation due to systematic biases, MedSenso emerges as a trustworthy and practical alternative for both clinical and routine use. These findings highlight the importance of balancing correlation strength and difference analysis in device selection, reinforcing the need for continuous validation against laboratory standards to ensure accurate and dependable diabetes management.